Goat Production by Landless and Small Scale Farmers in North Indian Plains
H.P.S.Arya and Mahesh Chander
Division of Extension Education
Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, UP,
India
ABSTRACT
Small ruminants especially goats contribute to the livelihoods of millions of rural poor in
most of the developing countries of the Asia and Africa, where 95% of the world’s goat
population is concentrated and also the majority of world’s poor live. Goat production
has witnessed excellent growth over the years despite a negative campaign against it for
its perceived adverse impact on vegetation, forest and grazing lands. Small farmers and
landless agricultural laborers are increasingly relying on goats for meeting their cash
requirements. This micro level study done in six selected villages of the north Indian state
of Uttar Pradesh has confirms the fact that goat is one of the most suitable livestock
species for landless and small farmers who for variety of reasons can not maintain large
ruminants like cow and buffaloes. Small ruminants are well integrated in the farming
systems of the small and marginal farmers of India who find in goats a vast potential for
their socio-economic upliftment. Women were found to be particularly more inclined
towards goats while men were more focused on large animals. Goats offer a strong
opportunity to development agencies for suitable interventions including micro credit,
extension, technical and marketing support especially to women, landless and small
farmers.
INTRODUCTION
Goat production has flourished in poorly endowed areas like dry zones and the
mountainous areas in developing countries of Asia and Africa where over 95% of the
world goat population is concentrated. Goats are reared mainly by poorest of the poor of
the poor developing countries. In India too, the small and marginal farmers, including
landless agricultural laborers, mostly in non green revolution areas where irrigation
facilities are poorly developed, prominently rear goats (Rekib, 1998). Many macro level
studies have confirmed that goats are important for the people living in dry areas and
mountainous regions. Also, it is now well documented that goat production can be an
important tool to ameliorate the conditions of poor women in developing countries, thus,
being seen as source of women’s emancipation by the development agencies (Sinn;
Ketzis and Chen, 1999).
Goat population witnessed +8.1% change between 1990 and 1996 at a global level and
the maximum change (+27%) has been in Asian countries. Over the last 15 years, the
number of goats has increased by almost 50% at world level, whereas, sheep decreased
by 4% and cattle increased by only 9%. Thus, goat has emerged as a major livestock
species that is enormously rising in number (Morand-Fehr and Boyazoglu, 1999;
Devendra, 2001).
In India, during the last 40 years, the goat population rose by 140%. Goat population in
India has increased at a faster rate than that of other species of farm animals. In 1952,
there were 47.0 million goats, which has risen now to 123.0 million (17.08 % of the
world’s goat population) making India number two in the world ranking and number one
in goat milk production (http://www.apps.fao.org). The National Commission on
Agriculture (NCA, 1976) in India had recommended the reduction in goat population on
the grounds of environmental implications of goat rearing on degradation of forest and
grazing lands. The phenomenal increase in goat population despite NCA
recommendations against it, is explained by the importance of goats for the rural people
in India. In India, the contribution of livestock sector to Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
is rising though the contribution of agricultural sector in general is witnessing a declining
trend. In such a situation, goats are going to be even more important source of livelihood
for many more people in coming years and, thus, deserve greater attention at both the
micro and macro level. The current study being a part of a broader study on livestock
production systems was undertaken mainly to appraise the role of goats for small scale
farmers including the landless rural population in predominant crop- livestock mixed
farming systems operating in India.
METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in Bareilly district (Latitudes 28.100N and 28.500N and
Longitudes 78.580E and 79.470E) of a north Indian State (Uttar Pradesh) during 19992001. The data were gathered on dynamics of goat production from primary as well as
secondary sources. A door to door survey of 1721 households was carried out to find out
the herd composition and association of livestock/goats owned with land holding, caste
etc. in six selected villages. A Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) was conducted in two
villages with 642 livestock owning households selected for more focused assessment of
the situation. Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs) were also undertaken with the family
members of goat owning households so as to assess productivity, gender roles, disease
patterns, marketing behavior and distribution of goats along various dimensions
especially caste, landholding and gender. Matrix ranking for choice of livestock species
preferred by different categories of farmers, problem cause diagrams, constraints
analysis, productivity potential of various species in different seasons,
mortality/morbidity pattern, resource maps etc were developed using the RRA/PRA tools
which further helped in appraisal of the goat production system in the area under study.
However, the results are focused here only on association of goats with landholding and
caste, which have significant implications for livestock production in India.
RESULTS
Bareilly district is densely populated (688 persons/sq Km); 67% of the population is
concentrated in rural areas involved mainly with agriculture and animal husbandry. The
total livestock population in the district is 899,198, out of which 16,498 are crossbred
2
cattle, 290,568 local cattle, 441,578 buffaloes, 4926 sheep, 116,076 are goats, 29,552
pigs. The average milk production per day for cow, buffalo and goat is 2.55, 3.35 and 0.5
Kgs, respectively. The low productivity may be explained in terms of low- input low output system of livestock production prevailing by and large in India, low productivity
potential of native breeds, acute shortage of feed and fodder, poor livestock health
coverage, non commercial orientation of livestock keepers and poor marketing and
extension support available to Indian farmers.
Uttar Pradesh with 13,110,000 goats (1992 Census), is the third largest state in India,
after Rajasthan and Bihar, in terms of goat population. Whereas, goat is the third major
livestock species (poultry excluded) after cattle and buffaloes reared in Bareilly district.
There were 116,076 goats in the district. The total goat population across the six selected
villages was 489 (Table 1). Goat command 3rd place (4th if poultry too is taken into
account) in the study area, where, buffalo and cattle were having prominent positions
(Table- 1).
The door-to-door survey of all the six selected villages was done to collect data on
livestock profile (Table 1 to 3). Out of the six villages, two villages namely Rithora and
Khata were selected for more focused study on goat production system, since these two
villages had maximum number of goats and highest concentration of goats, respectively.
On the basis of the door to door survey, the general description of these villages in terms
of livestock ownership in general, is given in Table 1, while Table 2 and 3 describe the
distribution of goats across the different caste groups and land holding (up to 1ha:
Marginal; 1-2 ha: Small; > 2ha: Large farmer). The data presented in tables 2 and 3 give a
fairly clear idea how goat production is centered around small (1-2 ha land) and marginal
farmers (up to 1 ha land) as also the other backward classes among the Hindus including
the Muslims who are the majority goat keepers. In Khata village for instance, all 54 goats
were owned by the other backward castes (OBCs), while livestock owning families were
only 1 and 4 from General and SC/ST categories, respectively.
In Rithora village, out of 244 goats, 223 were owned by OBCs, whereas, SC/ST (Socio
economically downtrodden, constitutionally categorized and protected by the law) owned
15 goats and 6 goats were owned by farmers belonging to general caste category. The
OBCs were the largest group having 441 families followed by SC/ST (92 families) and
general caste (23 livestock owning families). The OBCs, which included Muslims, were
the majority goat keepers across the selected villages; thus, goat is significant to them to
supplement their family income. Besides, goats appeared to be very significant for the
landless as they had maintained a maximum number of goats (Table 2). There cannot be
any better example of resourcelessness than being landless in a farming context, with
limited opportunities of diversification for improving the quality of life. In the study area,
such people have seen in goat a potential for supplementing their family income over
their earnings from the wages as agricultural laborers.
3
Other general findings of the study can be summarized as follows:
1. Mostly Muslims and landless laborers kept goats. Muslims were included in the Other
Backward Class (OBC) category (categorization according to economic status) which
owned 426 goats (87.14%), out of the total 489 goats in the selected villages.
2. The farmers belonging to general castes* (Higher caste Hindus) in general, had less
number of livestock and still less they had goats.
3. The OBCs among the Hindus in the area had least preferences for goats.
4. Small, marginal farmers and landless laborers were the group having interest in goat
keeping. The area under forest was negligible in the district (313ha) as well as in the
studied villages. Whereas, the proximity to forest positively affect goat rearing.
5. Goats were reared mainly for meat purpose and hectic activity was seen regarding the
sale/purchase of goats during the Muslim festivals like Eid.
6. Goats are treated as ready cash as they could be disposed off easily, locally and at a
reasonable price.
7. Women were taking more interest in nurture and even in the sale at home as well as at
biweekly ‘haat’ (local market) at nearby town (Rithora), while children and aged
women take goats to grazing.
8. Goats often cause conflict when these stray in the crop fields of other farmers. This is
one of the deterrents for goat rearing especially for landless and small scale farmers.
9. The families which had more number of children were more inclined to keep goats as
the children could be used for taking goats to grazing on fallow land, harvested fields,
alongside roads and other uncultivated areas.
Table 1: Livestock population in the villages under study
Villages
Buffalo
Cattle
Goat
Bhandsar
238(46)
152(29)
66(13)
Khata
228(52)
129(29
54 (12)
Rithora
582(30)
347(18) 244(13)
Mohanpur
80(32)
66(26)
28(11)
Kalapur
232(66)
82(24)
3(1)
Mudia
335(54)
64(10)
94(15)
Ahmadnagar
Total
1695(41) 841(20) 489(12)
(Figures in parenthesis are percentage)
Poultry
60(11)
21(5)
709(37)
75(30)
21(6)
118(19)
Pig
5(1)
7(2)
34(2)
2(1)
11(3)
4(1)
Horse
1(0)
2(0)
13(1)
0
3(1)
1(0)
Total
522
411
1929
251
353
616
1004(24)
63(2)
20(1)
4112
*
A caste is a social category whose members are assigned a permanent status within a given
social hierarchy and contacts are restricted accordingly (Lundberg et al. 1968). In India, the
Hindu society is stratified on the basis of Caste System. There are thousands of castes and subcastes presently existing in India, but broadly they are classified into three: the General caste,
Other Backward Caste (OBC) and the Scheduled Caste (SC)/ Scheduled Tribe (ST). Lineage is
the only criterion in determining the caste of an individual in the Hindu society.
4
Table 2: Landholding Vs Ownership of Goats
Landholding
Livestock
owning families
(%)
Landless
(0 ha)
Marginal
(Up to 1ha)
Small
(1-2 ha)
Large
(> 2 ha)
Total
480 (44.81)
411
319 (65.23)
Av. Goat
population per
livestock
owning
household
0.664
388 (36.22)
215
147 (30.06)
0.378
102 (9.52)
15
20 (4.08)
0.196
101 (9.43)
09
03 (0.61)
0.029
1071
Families not
owning
livestock
650
Goats owned
(%)
489
0.456
Goats owned
Av. Goat
population per
livestock
owning
household
0.306
Table 3: Caste Vs Ownership of goats
Caste
Livestock
owning families
Families not
owning
livestock
(%)
(%)
General
49 (4.57)
62
15 (3.06)
OBC
863 (80.57)
471
426 (87.12)
0.493
SC/ST
159 (14.84)
117
48 (9.81)
0.301
Total
1071
650
489
0.456
The goat production system as a part of the existing broad crop-livestock mixed farming
system of the selected villages is further described in the following sections.
Breeding
Indiscriminate breeding is prevalent in the area. No efforts seem to have made to improve
the stock through selective breeding or by introducing high potential breeds. The goats
were small sized, colored (white/black/brown), showing no specific breed characters.
The kidding takes place twice a year. One kid is usually born at Ist kidding followed by
twining in subsequent kidding. Goats of bigger body size are usually brought from
outside (Etah, Etawah and Mathura) area for sale prior to Eid but the good stock is not
maintained by the farmers for longer duration. This may be due to non availability of feed
and fodder with the poor goat keepers. Male goats are taken better care of than the
5
female ones as these fetch good price to the owners. Many do not like goat milk; hence,
less priority is attached to milk traits of the goats.
Feeding
Feeding seems to be the most neglected aspect in goat production in the area under study.
Goats were maintained on grazing in harvested fields, along the roadside and on other
uncultivated/ barren lands. The natural ability of goat to eat a wide variety of vegetation
and waste has been, in fact, a big motivating factor for small, marginal and landless
laborers to rear small number of goats. Stall-feeding in goats was very limited. She goats
are given kitchen waste and the males are given inferior quality grains and grams for
fattening purposes. Children and old members take goats for grazing in nearby fields in
the morning and also in the afternoon. Those households, which do not have children or
aged members in their families, hardly keep goats.
Disease Control
The farmers did not report disease in goats as problem. Since goat production is only a
fringe activity for most of the farmers, the health problems of goats were hardly paid any
attention. However, to find out the types of health problems in local goats, the
information maintained in the register of Indian Veterinary Research Institute run weekly
clinic at Rithora was also studied. This revealed that goats suffered mainly from worm
load, mange, mineral deficiency, anorexia, contagious ecythyma, diarrhea, mastitis etc.
Management
Goats do not play a significant role in the day-to-day life of local farmers compared to the
buffaloes and cattle. This may be due to the fact that the study area is well endowed with
fertile soil, irrigation facilities, well connected by mettled road, inhabited by farmers
belonging to Yadav and Kurmi castes who consider it lowly to rear goats. Moreover, the
big majority of the farmers in the area were vegetarian. Yet, goats are considered by
many as a ready cash in the times of immediate need / financial crisis, since, it find
almost ready market all round the year. Goats are owned by and large by the small /
marginal farmers and landless laborers, who owing to limitations of space and grazing
area, can not maintain more than 3-4 goats at their homesteads. Housing and grazing
seems to be a big constraint in goat husbandry for the local poor farmers. Its women
mainly who take interest in goat rearing as the men generally concentrate on large
animals. Women find it a potential source of earning money exclusively for their personal
needs as they could meet their personal expenses like in buying ornaments, cosmetics,
toys and eatables for children etc with the occasional sale of goats. As such, they do take
care of goats as their personal belonging or pocket money. Women especially from
Muslim and socio economically weaker sections were seen increasingly in the by- weekly
haat (local market), selling goats but not any other species, which were being sold by the
men only. Elsewhere in the world too, women and children tend to be more caring for
goats (Sinn; Ketzis and Chen, 1999). The bank officials in Rithora town informed that
farmers never approached them for loans to buy goats, whereas, loans were sought for
6
buying cattle and buffaloes. This indicates the possibility of suitable interventions
including micro credit to women for goat husbandry that will lead to empowerment and
emancipation of women.
CONCLUSION
Goat as a source of supplementing household income is getting increasing attention
especially among the landless agricultural laborers and small and marginal farmers
mostly belonging to Muslim and other marginalized groups. Women are increasingly
finding it as a potential source of earning cash income to meet their personal
requirements like buying ornaments, cloths etc. since the men mostly concentrate on
large animals and pocket the earnings for other needs of family. The Muslim festival of
Eid is one important factor for rearing goats in the area as a large number of goats are
reared for sacrifice during this festival and rural people find it economically very
rewarding to rear goats for sale. The goat population is likely to get a further boost once
the culinary preferences of other communities like Hindus who are in majority change in
favor of non vegetarian foods. The goats of good productive potential are likely to be
introduced in the area once the local demand rises owing to increasing awareness and
industrialization. The landless, small and marginal farmers are gradually recognizing
potential of goat as a low cost solution to resourcelessness. The large animals do not fit
well into their household and infrastructural paradigms and goat has little requirements,
thus, it is getting popular with advancing times.
Goats are a highly attractive asset for poor women in India as also in the area under
study. Yet land, credit and extension policy in many states in India effectively
discriminate against goat- owners, on the grounds that goats are particularly damaging to
environment (Conway et al, 2002). This antipathy of development agencies especially
within the domain of government in the name of environmental protection should change
since there is no definite evidence to prove that goats pose a threat to the environment.
Instead, technical, extension and marketing support should be provided so as to make
goat production a profitable enterprise for all sections of society irrespective of caste,
creed, land holding etc. The tradition bound communities currently not rearing goat
though economically poor should be motivated through educational and incentive based
developmental interventions to take up goat husbandry for their upliftment. Use of goat
milk also should be promoted among the local people, and stall feeding needs
encouragement. Government agencies and NGOs have to play a vital role in these efforts.
REFERENCES
Conway, Tim; Moser, Caroline; Norton, Andy and Farrington, John (2002). Rights and
Livelihoods Approaches: Exploring policy dimensions. ODI Natural Resources
Perspectives, Number 78, May, London, p. 6
Devendra, C. (2001). Small ruminants: Imperatives for productivity enhancement,
improved livelihoods and rural growth- a review. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal
Sciences, 14, 10, 1483-1496.
7
Lundberg, G.A.; Schrag, C.C.; Latsen, O.N. and Calton, W.R. (1968). Sociology, 4 th
Edition. New York, Harper Press.
Morand - Fehr, P and Boyazoglu, J. (1999). Present state and future outlook of the small
ruminant sector. Small Ruminant Research, 34, 259-269.
Rekib, A. (1998). Grazing resources and livestock productivity with special reference to
goat production. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 68, 8 (Special Issue), 846-848.
Sinn, R.; Ketzis, J and Chen, T. (1999). The role of women in the sheep and goat sector.
Small Ruminant Research, 34, 259-269.
Corresponding Author Contact Information
Mahesh Chander, Division of Extension Education, Indian Veterinary Research Institute,
Izatnagar- 243 122, UP, INDIA, Phone: +91 581 440 391(Office), +91 581 447 163
(Home), Fax: +91 581 447 284, mahesh@ivri.up.nic.in, mahesh64@email.com, Small
Farm diversification and competitiveness
8